On Tue, 27 Aug 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 04:03:42PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 05:29:23PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 05:11:22PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote: > > > > Hi Jakub and/or Joseph, > > > > > > > > the reporter of this bug seems to be very anxious to have it fixed in > > > > the repository. While Richi is away, do you think you could have a > > > > look? It is very small. > > > > > > Isn't this ABI incompatible change (at least potential on various > > > targets)? > > > If so, then it shouldn't be applied to release branches, because it would > > > create (potential?) ABI incompatibility between 4.8.[01] and 4.8.2. > > > > > > > I don't know. I did a few attempts to observe a change in the calling > > convention of a function accepting a zero sized array terminated > > structure by value (on x86_64) but I did not succeed. On the other > > hand, I assume there are many other ways how a mode can influence ABI. > > So I'll try to have a look whether we can hack around this situation > > in 4.8's expr.c instead. > > All I remember that e.g. the number of regressions from PR20020 was big, > and any kind of TYPE_MODE changes are just extremely risky. > Perhaps x86_64 in the ABI decisions never uses mode, but we have tons of > other targets and it would surprise me if none of those were affected. > > > Nevertheless, is this patch ok for trunk? > > I'll defer that to Richard now that he is back ;)
Eh ... :/ I'm extremely nervous about this change. I also believe the change is unrelated to the issue in the bugreport (even if it happens to fix the ICE). Let me have a (short) look. Richard.
